HESA for Managers

21 May 2008

Objectives

• Understanding the Record Review process

• Introducing MIAP and HERRG

• Statutory uses of HESA data

• Non-statutory uses of HESA data

• Future developments of records

HESA Record Review

Catherine BenfieldHead of Operations

Development

Record Review

=

HESA’s change management process

Change management 1

Why do we make changes?

• Changing Statutory Customer needs arising from new legislation, policy developments, funding model changes … and so on

• Changing Higher Education sector needs

• Improving data quality – fitness-for-purpose criterion, but it is a moving target

• Reducing accountability burden – long-term gain versus cost of change

Change management 2 How do we make changes?

Structured change at intervals through record review Shopping list Review group: SCs, sector representatives, interested

parties/experts Formulate proposals Consultation(s) with sector and external bodies Assimilation of responses to consultation(s) Finalise recommendations HESA Board approval Write specification One-year lead time

… but (sigh!) annual incremental change is inevitable

Recently announced change

• Implementation of major structural change and content changes to 2007/08 Student Record

• Review of DLHE – implementation for 2007/08

• Results from the first Longitudinal DLHE survey published and biennial future for the survey agreed

• Changes announced for the Staff Record for 2008/09

• FSR aligned with 2007/08 SORP

Current activities and the next 12 months

• Post-implementation review of 2007/08 Student Record

• Second Longitudinal DLHE survey

• Fitness for purpose review of NCB

• Merger of HE-BCI survey with FSR and updates to FSR

• Complete review and finalise JACS 3.0

Interaction with sector

• Record review group membership

• Sector bodies

• Sector-wide consultation

• Operational documentation

• Training

• Helpdesk

HEFCE use of HESA data

HESA

21 May 2008

Presented by Richard Puttock

“Submitting data to HESA is like firing it

into a black hole”

Data for funding

HEFCE use HESA data to inform our funding

• Widening participation

• Business research funding

• Access to learning fund

• Strategically important and vulnerable subjects

• Equivalent and Lower Qualifications (ELQs)

Data to monitor funding

HEFCE use HESA data to monitor funding

• HESES

• Research activity

Research and policy development

HESA data are used to help us Research higher education and develop policy

• Foundation degrees

• Young participation

• Strategically important and vulnerable subjects

• PhD research degrees

• Many others

Publications and public information

The following regular publications draw heavily on HESA data:

• UniStats

• Performance indicators

• Regional profiles

• Provision of higher education by location

• Students registered at one institution but taught by another

Possible future developments

• Funding directly from HESA

– HESES

– RAS

• Linking in to other data

– SLC

– UCAS

– National Pupil Database

The future

MIAP and HERRG

Jane Wild

Director of Operations

MIAP services will improve data sharing…

• Built in partnership– Education sector bodies, representatives, policies &

programmes

• HE Partners– HEFCE, HESA, JISC, QAA, UCAS, UUK

• Broad Consultation– Information Commissioner, HERRG

• Delivering three key services:– Learner Registration Service and the Unique Learner Number– Learner Record– UK Register of Learning Providers

…and have been developed in partnership with the sector

Some benefits of MIAP to HE Institutions and their students …

• UKPRN, ULN and CDD facilitate improved data sharing by HE stakeholders

• Learner access to Learner Record will improve data accuracy at an individual level

• Learner Record offers possibility for reliable qualification verification – could be used to simplify enrolment/registration processes

• Learner Record represents a single cumulative source of achievement and progression information – so could be used to produce progress files, transcripts, Diploma Supplement and Higher Education Achievement Report

• MIAP therefore offers the potential to assist HEIs in support of the Skills Agenda, Life Long Learning and the Bologna Process

…and offers real benefits to all its adopters

2007/08 HESA Student Record includes UKPRN

• Maintained by UKRLP• As the single reference source of provider

identifier details• Adoption of UKPRN over time as the primary

identifier for institutions• In the long term, anticipated that UKPRN will

replace HESA Institution Identifier (INSTID) as the single unique identifier, and will also be used by UCAS, SLC etc.

• UKPRN is key in standardisation between stakeholder systems

2007/08 HESA Student Record includes ULN

• Increasing number of learners will have ULNs when they move to HE

• From September 2009, hoped that ULN will be included in HESA returns for students who have previously been allocated with number

• Likely to be some time before all students entering higher education are able to provide a ULN

• Systems will be put in place to issue ULNs to mature students and students from overseas

• Students who have been allocated a ULN should be aware of this fact and should have access to their number

• In the long term, anticipated that ULN will replace HESA Unique Student Identifier (HUSID) as the single unique identifier, and will also be used by UCAS, SLC etc.

• ULN is key in standardisation between stakeholder systems

Common Data Definitions (CDD)

• Part of the MIAP development• An ‘enabling’ infrastructure project• Led by HESA• Produced a standard set of data definitions

– e.g. standard character sets and ISO/BS formats

• Facilitates effective data sharing• Allows for more consistent and comparable

information

2007/08 HESA Student Record includes CDD

Higher Education Regulation Review

Group (HERRG) • The HERRG is the independent regulation review (or

"gatekeeper") group for higher education in England

• It was established in summer 2004 by the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education

• Its membership is made up of front line practitioners, mainly Registrars and Directors of Finance from universities 

• Chair currently Steve Bundred, Secretariat provided by DIUS

• The HERRG aims are to review policies for their regulatory impact on higher education in England regardless of departmental origin

• The Group also explores existing areas of bureaucratic demand and recommends ways of doing things better helping promote the Government’s Principles of Good Regulation

HERRG outcomes

• Initial report “Less regulated: more accountable” published in June 2005 • Final report “Less regulated: more accountable” published in Autumn 2006

– sets out 24 recommendations, directed towards Government and its agencies, the Group, and Professional and Statutory Regulatory Bodies

• First year developments included HEFCE announcing a reduced number of special funding streams, also abolishing multiple data demands during the year (except for institutions at risk); and monitoring by exception

• Focus during second year on ensuring better coordination of quality assurance and data collection - Concordat launched in May 2006

• 16 original signatories to the Concordat; in total 22 bodies now signed (or agreed to do so) including: DIUS, DH, HEFCE, QAA, TDA, Ofsted, LSC, RCUK, Skills for Health, The Information Centre, SfBn, MIAP, HESA, ARB and IET

• Concordat commits signatories to practical plans for working together on a less burdensome, more proportionate approach to quality assurance and data collection

HESA Concordat Annex May 2008

• Formalisation of burden assessment

• Data collection mechanism for DLHE

• GTCE/TDA data collection

• HE-BCI survey

• NCB collection

• Health service data

• Services to the HE sector

• Services to DfES/DIUS

Welcome to heidihigher education

information database for institutions

Jonathan Waller,

Director of Information & Analysis

What is heidi?• Web-based management information tool

• Subscription service provided by HESA

• Incorporating a broad range of data about HE

• Create reports and charts

• User-defined groups of institutions

• Locally administered

The history of heidi…

Development partners

Development funding

The infrastructure

• Delivered to users through standard web technology

• Hosted on existing HESA infrastructure

• Developed and supported by HESA

• HESA SDM, ISO9001, BS7799

heidi v1.0

• heidi 1.0 went live on 16 April 2007:– HESA Student, DLHE, staff and finance– UCAS – applications and accepted applicants– Performance Indicators– Estates Management Statistics– Key financial indicators– Funders Forum Metrics (aka Sustainability

Metrics)– GTTR and NMAS – applications and accepted

applicants– Training Development Agency data

heidi v1.1 released

• heidi v1.1 released 8 August 2007

• heidi v1.1 included all the data from heidi v1.0, with the following additions:– National Student Survey Data 2004/05 – 2005/06– Higher Education Management Statistics 2001/02

– 2004/05– Results from 2001 Research Assessment Exercise– Additional data from UCAS, GTTR, NMAS 2005/06– Enhanced functionality – including group filters

heidi v1.1 for the public

• Free public access for a limited amount of data, enabling universal use of a range of standard reports.

• Can be used to assist Higher Education institutions to respond to basic FoI requests.

heidi v1.2

• heidi v1.2 released 8 February 2008

• Enhanced functionality to users, including:– Ability to adjust the year of data displayed– Ability to roll a report forward and

backwards– Increase report columns from 8 to 12

The future of heidi…

heidi v2.0

• To be released during August 2008• New features will include:

– Increasing the number of visible report columns to an anticipated maximum of 24

– The introduction of aggregate report columns – The introduction of report column nesting – Improved organisation and management of lists – Restructuring of reports and charts by introducing the

principle of 'Report Views' – Enhanced user and role permissions management – The incorporation of Taylor Squares statistical analysis

techniques – The incorporation of Universities UK Patterns data

representations

UNIVERSITY OF POPPLETON

2004-05

TOTAL STUDENT LOAD

Academic Cost Centres

STUDENT LOAD / FTE Acad

Continuing Education 250%

Management StudiesDesign & Creative Arts

Health & Commun. StudsFrench, Spanish & German

Computer Software EngBiosciences

Electr & Computer EngPsychol & Behav Sci

Social Studies

HumanitiesOther Modern Languages

Language Studs

Mathematics

Poppleton student loadas % of ex-UFC average

Cumulative % of student load when at ex-UFC average

150

100%

50

0

0 50 100%

© 2007 Bryan J. R. TaylorE-mail B.Taylor@bath.ac.uk

Calculated March 23, 2007

Source: HESA CD-ROM HE Planning Plus 2006 1 sq.cm. = 86 Student FTEsTotal University student load is 86% of ex-UFC average for its mixture of academics.

heidi v2.0 development cont’d• The expansion of existing HESA datasets

(in addition to regular annual updates to datasets):– Student staff ratios by cost centre & institution – Student FTE by domicile, fee status and fundability

code – Student FTE by mode, domicile and level – Staff FTE by academic employment function – FE student qualification obtained data – Inclusion of additional HESA data by JACS principal

subject and cost centre

heidi v3.0 and beyond...

• Currently gathering requirements

• Geo-demographic mapping – for example show home domicile of students by postcode mapping

• Data explorer improvements for example provide a search facility through the data explorer

• Enhancements to HESA and non HESA data

• The ability to export large reports/datasets

• User ideas

Want to know more…

• Information:www.heidi.ac.uk

• System:heidi.hesa.ac.uk

The use of equality data

Nicola Dandridge

Chief Executive, Equality Challenge Unit

21 May 2008

Evidence based equality

Legal Framework

Effective interventions

Equality Challenge Unit programme

Legal requirements

Race Relations Act Order 2001, Reg 3: ‘it shall be the duty [of an HEI to] monitor, by reference to [different] racial groups … the recruitment and career progress of staff.’

Disability Regulations 2005 : a public body must gather information on the effect of its policies and practices on disabled persons, in particular their effect on the recruitment, development and retention of its disabled employees

The Sex Discrimination Act Order 2006: a public body must gather information on the effect of its policies and practices on men and women, in particular on the extent to which they promote equality between male and female staff

Changes in numbers of male and female permanent academic

staff

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-2000

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

Academic year

Nu

mb

er o

f ac

adem

ic s

taff

Lecturers MaleSenior staff MaleLecturers FemaleProfessors MaleSenior staff FemaleProfessors Female

Senior staff = senior lecturers and researchers

Source: HEFCE: the HE workforce, July 2006

Equalities Review, 2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Motherswith

childrenunder 11

Pakistaniwomen

Disabledpeople

Projected date ofclosure ofemployment gap (oncurrent rate ofprogress)

Evidence based interventions

Avoiding assumptions and stereotypes

For example promotion of women

disaggregation in relation to race

Occupational segregation

Focus on outputs

Challenges: disaggregated data

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Pakistani and Bangladeshi women

Pakistani and Bangladeshi

Indian women

Indian men

Caribbean women

Caribbean men

Women as a group

Lone mother, kids <11

Partnered mother, kids <11

Lone moether, kids 11+

Partnered mother, kids 11+

Partnered woman

Single woman

Single man

Disabled

Over 50

Percentage

Source: Equalities Review: Interim report 2006

More challenges

Reliability of data - disclosure rates for race and disability

IntersectionsStatistics as ‘the new racism’; reinforcing

stereotypesQualitative indicators (for instance

Government’s Equality PSAs)Using the data effectivelyand many others…

Equality Challenge Unit strategy

2008 programme

The diversity agenda

Distribution of staff record

‘Equality Heidi

HEFCE use of HESA staff data

HESA

21 May 2008

Presented by Richard Puttock

Staff trends and projections

• First published in 2002

• Covers all staff

• Data on:

– Trends in numbers of staff

– Staff demographics

– Projections (2003 only)

Permanent academic staff over 60

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Academic year

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f s

taff

Professors Senior lecturers/researchers Lecturers Total

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Academic year

Nu

mb

er o

f st

aff

Academics

Assistant academics

Trends in academic staff numbers

Trends in professional and support staff

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Academic year

Nu

mb

er o

f st

aff

Managers and professionals

Technicians

Support administrators

Other

Total

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Academic year

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f st

aff

Lecturers Senior lecturers and researchers Professors

Permanent academic staff by grade

Permanent academics by sex and grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Academic year

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f s

taff

ProfessorsSenior lecturer/researchersLecturersTotal

Salaries of permanent academic staff

Total Male Female Male Female

Creative arts/design £38,770 £38,770 £38,480 11% 5%Unknown and combined subjects £38,770 £39,940 £38,770 21% 9%… … … … … …

Veterinary sciences / agriculture / related subjects £40,660 £42,150 £38,770 23% 8%

Law £40,710 £43,640 £39,490 28% 12%… … … … … …

Physical sciences £46,300 £46,300 £41,540 35% 18%

Medicine and Dentistry £80,810 £80,810 £71,820 88% 67%

Total £41,130 £43,710 £39,030 28% 12%

Subject areaMedian salary % earning £50,000+

78%

79%

80%

81%

82%

83%

84%

85%

86%

87%

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Academic year

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f st

aff

Proportion of academic staff who are permanent

Number of permanent academic staff with a declared disability

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-2000

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Academic year

Nu

mb

er

of

sta

ff

Declaring disability

• Duties to monitor disability

• Numbers lower than might be expected

• High variability in proportion unknown

RAE selection

“Staff require 4 good articles in high quality journals to be in the RAE”

• Duty on HEFCE to evaluate all policies for equality

• Linking RAE and HESA record

• HESA checking selected staff

• Publication

Proportion of staff selected

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Age

Pro

port

ion s

elec

ted for R

AE

FemaleMale

Probability of selection (model)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Age

Sel

ecti

on

in

de

x

EqualityFull model

2008/09 Staff Record Changes

Daniel Kidd, Training Officer

Introduction

• The current Staff Record was implemented in 2003/04…

• …since implementation only minor updates have been made to the record…

• …a range of areas where more significant updates and additions to the record were identified as necessary by HESA and its Statutory Customers

Introduction

• HESA issued circular 07/01 in April 2007 setting out proposals for change to the Staff Record for implementation in 2007/08. 60 responses to the consultation circular were received

• Primary concerns of institutions were the timescales for implementation of the proposals and the inclusion of staff names within the record

Result of the Consultation

• The proposed changes were put back from the 2007/08 reporting period until 2008/09

• Staff names were excluded from the record for 2008/09…

• …however the issue has not gone away

Staff names in the record

• Currently the use of STAFFIDs within the record is not adequately enabling statutory customers to track staff within institutions and across the sector

• The exclusion of staff names has been accepted on the proviso that the transfer of STAFFIDs from one HEI to another will improve …

- Data quality check in place

- Staff Identifier contact list improvments

The changes…

New data model

Person

Table

Data Collection System

GRADIDSTAFFID

Contract

Table

Grade

Table

Changed fields – Person Table• 005 GENDER - Updated to MIAP Common

Data Definitions:

- 0 Unknown, 1 Male, 2 Female 9 Indeterminate

• 006 NATION – HESA is adopting a standard list of country codes:

- GB instead of 2826 for United Kingdom

• 0010 DISABLED – No longer used (must still be returned with default X to comply with structure)

New fields – Person Table

• 024 DISABLED1 and 025 DISABLED2 introduced to collect specific information about the nature of the staff disability

• Disability is still recorded on the basis of the staff member's own self-assessment

Changed fields – Contract Table

• 011 GRADE – No longer used due to the introduction of the Grade table (must still be returned with default XX)

• 013 SOBS & 015 SSOBS - Additional codes have been added into these fields to enable more specific coding of source of salary e.g. the research councils, Cancer Research UK

New fields – Contract Table

• 034 CLINICAL

• This field indicates the clinical/non-clinical status of the member of staff

• Required for SOC 2A staff who are not atypical

- 0 Not Clinical academic

- 1 Clinical academic doctors and dentists

- 2 Clinical academic nurses and midwives

- 3 Clinical academic health professions

- 4 Other Clinical academic staff

New fields – Contract Table

• 035 PROF

• Indicates whether or not the contract is for a professorial role

• In some institutions 'professor' is not a grade in the local grade structure. As such professors will probably be coded 520 (Contract not graded) in the GRADID

• Contracts should only be returned as professorial where that title has been conferred through a formal process and are considered to be for full professors and not otherwise e.g. Assistant or Associate Professors

New fields – Contract Table

• 0033 GRADID links the contract to the appropriate grade on the Grade table

• 0033 GRADID - This field must contain either a grade submitted on the institution's grade table, or a generic code from the other grades, as listed in the valid entries for this field

08027 Grade Table

• The table provides details of the institution's local grade structure(s) in relation to the final framework agreement

• Nationally recognised grade structures are not required to be included

• Required to report on salary information for all non-atypical staff, in addition to atypical academics (SOC 2A)

Identifying the table

• 001 RECID

- The record identifier for the Staff record Grade Table is C08027

• 002 INSTID

- This should be the same as the institution identifier submitted on the Person Table and on the Contract Table

Identifying grades

• 003 INSTGRAD

- The grade identifiers reported in this field will link the Grade Table to contracts submitted on 08026 via the GRADID field

• 004 GRADNAM

- Textual field to capture names of those grades referenced in INSTGRAD

Defining grades on the framework

• 005 MINSPINE

- This field should be completed with the minimum spine point for the grade where the grade is reflected on the Framework Salary Spine.

• 006 CONSPINE

- This field should be completed with the contribution related pay threshold spine point for the grade where the grade is reflected on the Framework Salary Spine, i.e. the highest point it is possible to reach without being awarded contribution related pay.

• 007 MAXSPINE

- This field should be completed with the maximum spine point for the grade where grade is reflected in the Framework Salary Spine.

Defining grades on the framework

• MINSPINE, CONSPINE, MAXSPINE These three fields provide salary information in the form of spine points for the grade identified in INSTGRAD and GRADNAM.

• These fields should be completed where a grade is defined WITH reference to points on the JNCHES Framework Agreement.

• If contribution related pay threshold is not used then only MINSPINE and MAXSPINE require completion.

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

Lect

urer

Sen

ior

Lect

urer

JNCHES Framework Agreement

Lecturer

GRADNAM Lecturer

MINSPINE F25

MAXSPINE F29

CONSPINE F30

Senior Lecturer

GRADNAM Senior Lecturer

MINSPINE F29

MAXSPINE F33

CONSPINE F34

Defining grades not on framework

• 008 MINSAL

- This field should be completed with the minimum salary for the grade where the grade is not reflected on the Framework Salary Spine.

• 009 CONSAL

- This field should be completed with a value where the contribution pay threshold for the grade is not reflected on the Framework Salary Spine, i.e. the highest point it is possible to reach without being awarded contribution related pay.

• 010 MAXSAL

- This field should be completed with the maximum salary for the grade where the grade is not reflected on the Framework Salary Spine.

Defining grades not on framework

• MINSAL, CONSAL, MAXSAL These three fields provide salary information in the form of a monetary value for the grade identified in INSTGRAD and GRADNAM.

• These fields should be completed for grades which are defined WITHOUT reference to points on the JNCHES Framework Agreement.

• Note: Where institutions are using the JNCHES national pay spine but making local adjustments, (for example to consolidate London weighting) then BOTH spine point and monetary value information are required.

Lecturer

GRADNAM Lecturer

MINSAL 0024000

MAXSAL 0028500

CONSAL 0029800

Senior Lecturer

GRADNAM Senior Lecturer

MINSAL 0029500

MAXSAL 0036000

CONSAL 0037450

Things to consider

• Reviewing and updating systems…

• …close relationship with software supplier

• Updating of processes and forms to capture new data requirements e.g. new disability codes

• Assigning academic atypicals to grades

• Future HESA training events for operational staff

Institutional visits

• HEIs can request a visit to/by HESA

• Particularly useful if you have issues specific to your institution

• The day can be tailor made for each HEI

• No reasonable request refused!

Details from:http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/284/215/

Institutional Liaison helpdesk

• Telephone 01242 211144

• Email Liaison@hesa.ac.uk